A few thoughts: First, I would hope what PG speaks out against the practice of redistributing their efforts under DRM. Second, it's not clear to me re the issue of "authorship" of HTML by volunteers and who the "author" is on such works -- an issue which you guys might want to think about and get cleared up. Seems to me that a human-generated HTML *is* a non-trivial derivative work since the choice of HTML coding *is* a human artistic effort chosen to make the software run well on one or more ebook readers and/or HTML browsers, and as such *is* creative derivative work worthy of copyright. IE I am arguing that writing HTML is writing "software" and is not just "printer's art." Who then is the author of the HTML? Not PG. Is it a "work for hire" when nothing has been paid? *Can* PG redistribute such a work "for pay", and/or add their own headers which include the PG terms for redistribution? IE seems to me that PG is the publisher not the author of the HTML and even if a volunteers "gives" a copy to PG for redistribution it's not clear to me how this permits PG in turn to grant rights to Amazon to redistribute under other terms. This issue is not clear to me, just asking you guys to think clearly about it (as in: hire a lawyer) Certainly as a volunteer I personally would not want PG to be helping Amazon redistribute my HTML efforts under DRM in order to make a profit. This is not just an Amazon issue, the evolving issues with Google also have the potential to turn out very badly, IMHO. -- Jim